Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2037579. ; Size: 498K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

Policing School Discipline

Courts routinely defer to school officials in cases involving the investigation and punishment of youth. Youth accused of school misconduct are not entitled to the same procedural protections to which they would be entitled outside the school context. Such restrictions have been defended on the ground that school discipline, unlike law enforcement, serves the educational interests of youth.

However, recent observations of a “school-to-prison pipeline” resulting in the increased criminalization of student misbehavior cast doubt on this characterization of school discipline. This article evaluates empirical evidence on contemporary discipline practices and the extent to which they advance the educational interests of youth. It argues that courts should take into account the changed circumstances surrounding school discipline and modify the procedural protections available to youth in public schools accordingly. It proposes a context-specific framework for courts to do so and then explores the possibly critical role of non-judicial actors in meaningful reform.